You know I’m down with men of all ages, but let’s be honest–the gay or M4M community is kind of obsessed with youth. We’ve all dealt with the ageist bullshit at some point or another, whether it’s being rejected for being too old or getting turned down because you’re not “mature” enough.
Of course, wouldn’t it be worse if someone overlooked you because you appeared older in a photograph? We’ve always been against using your camera’s flash to take profile pictures, but now we’ve got a good reason. After browsing through OkTrends for our bicuriosity map, we’ve uncovered an incredibly sad truth. The flash makes you look approximately seven years older.
How is this possible? Well, the harsh light emphasizes any wrinkles, blemishes and other so-called flaws, thereby making someone appear “less attractive” to potential partners. You can avoid this unfortunate side effect by utilizing softer or natural light.
– Dewitt
To see a visual representation of this concept, follow the JUMP:
(via OkTrends)
Well if the flash adds seven years then what about the guy who posts pictures that are 15 to 20 years old? I’ve walked out on more than a few guys who misrepresented themselves that way. But the trick is to be weary of a single pic in a profile. That could mean that it was the only good picture the dude ever took or it was lifted from another website. I actually found my pic one time being used by someone else. LOL I was astonished and sort of flattered at the same time. But truthfully, that guy could have done better.
How about a guy who said he was 37 y/o and turns out to be 68 y/o, I asked him to leave. But what is even more annoying is when you give a younger guy a wink and he replies with an email calling you a pervert, relax guys it’s just a wink, be flattered.
No one will want to use my pics! Way too fugly! lol But at least my pics are real, and my age is too
This is an example of how statistics and empirical data can be used to hoodwink, confuse, and create semi-truths.
What are the units of “attractiveness of photo”? If it’s an index, what is it compared to. The maximum photo attractiveness is 0.07 different from the baseline. What is the baseline? Is 0.07 EVEN DIFFERENT from this baseline?
And, MOST IMPORTANTLY, what is the distrubution of data around each point? These two curves MAY NOT even be different from each other.
What a crock of garbage. I hate you Dewitt for every unfounded conclusion you made from data that you don’t even know anything about.
@scott the chart was obviously a joke. don’t flatter yourself
@Andrew, the chart was not obviously a joke. He cited his source, i.e. the OkTrends link directly under the picture. They have listed out all their processes and conclusions, this is but a snippet.
Back to the subject, lighting is key to good photography, something talked about up front in all good instruction. Look at the rock solid muscle studs … lighting can make a huge difference.
In this case, I believe he is aiming this blog to the average man, i.e. not the god-hunks and simply saying watch the lighting, it can make or break your picture. I’ve send 4 different pics from a short time period and I look different in all 4 of them.
I’ve even tried to take the attractive bathroom mirror picture in various hotel rooms and haven’t been able to get a good one yet that I’m happy with – lol. I’m thinking of spitting toothpaste on the mirror and trying again as that seems to be as important as good lighting to a hot bathroom mirror pic!
So I’ve established that one poster is a hater (Scott b), and another is a liar (Topocracy). Sheesh!
On the subject, I just take the pic. I am what I am. First time I’ve ever heard about the flash. Guess I’ll give it a try!
Topocracy U R a RACIST & LIAR all rolled up N 2 one !!!
I just clicked on the link under the graph and found several professional photographers take argument with the findings. Doesn’t sound like the evidence is rock solid to me.
just take the way they look in the worse pic and he will not be as good, this way if your man is better than the pic great and if not your not too let down
ps some people do take great photos and not so good in real life, others are so so in a pic but “hello my love” when you meet
When you talk about statistics you MUST mention Sample size… What is the standard error? Is the difference between means significant? Not to mention was the study conducted in a randomized or counterbalanced fashion, blind/double blind trials? This seems like an abuse of statistics.
Looking at the details of the study the huge problem is not comparing like with like, they do not compare the same person with or without flash, so it is confounded by different levels of attractiveness of people, time of day and whether indoors or out, level of expertise with camera, quality of camera lens and photographer… In other words the study is garbage before analysis, and the analysis is not conducted intelligently. This is just pseudoscientific nonsense
Willy is spot on. Besides, badly lit pics are more deceptive
Personally, I don’t put all of my faith into pics, or dimly lit rooms. Meet him in person or pull him into a well-lit space and decide.
I’ve always felt that the flash actually can flatter most people, because it actually erases blemishes and wrinkles (specially if up close, as in holding the camera urself)…. some bad lighting can give u dark circles under ur eyes, etc…..
not all flash is great for body shots, I usually prefer a light from above or the side….. the best light I have is in my bathroom, soft and from above…. ultimately the face-to-face encounter is what matters…
wish there were more places to meet men other than online….. it is nice to get that 5 second excitement at a first glance……